That's wild. So they just take the affiliate commission for everything when installed?
A lot of people purchase things through affiliate links to knowingly support the affiliate.. But if they have Honey installed it just "steals" the referral..
not sure if that's correct - i think the user has to click on something in the honey popup for them to overwrite the affiliate cookie. outright stealing everything would be too brazen and would probably get noticed by competing programs like rakuten.
however they insert themselves in the checkout page and offer measly honey points in the form of cash back as a cut of the commission they'd get.
there are stand down rules in the affiliate marketing space where you're not supposed to show your popup if someone has already claimed attribution of a purchase but i've heard many extensions don't follow these well.
How much are they paying per child? I see references to roughly $20k over 8 years. That's not "begging", that's a pittance. That probably doesn't even cover the cost of food over those 8 years.
Countries will get the babies they want when they incentivize the babies they want. Conservative politicians know this, though they have some pretty disgusting ideas about what those incentives should be. More stick than carrot IMO.
I think a world where we force women back into having no options and no prospects and no freedom and no rights just so they will produce the right colored babies is pretty abhorrent.
Any such country who is not doing it for the show but honestly trying would have to tear down most if not all cultural barriers. SK sounds like one of the last places for this to actually work.
There is about 200 millions of africans and north of 500 millions of asians in extreme poverty who would give their left leg to move to modern democracy, if it would be feasible. Heck, they are dying by hundreds trying to cross rough seas like mediterranean.
'quite open to immigration' is most probably not what we should call it, if expectations are around 100% knowledge of language and very obscure culture and its rules right out of the box to be at least tolerated.
Advanced, sure, but the leadership has always been dodgy.
They've had seven leaders since 1993 (before which they really did have a military junta in power). Three of them ended up impeached or jailed for corruption or wrongthink [0], a fourth has just attempted to use the military to crack down on the opposition. This is more like what I expect from Argentina or Brazil than a fully fledged democracy with peaceful transitions of power, say France.
That said, the Economist has it at #22 on its Democracy Index [1], one of the worst "full democracies" but ahead of France #23, USA #29, Brazil #51.
That many people from his previous administration and own party coming out against his character issues? It's unprecedented. Mind boggling.
Plus January 6th and all his legal problems(plus convictions). That whole government documents circus.
And we have collectively looked past this and put him back in office? He won the GOP PRIMARY?! I know people aren't "feeling the economy vibes" but dang.
I'm not really convinced of the "economy" argument. It's easy to make, but there is no reason to think that the other guy is actually any better. They may not be thrilled with where they are now, but they were not noticeably better off four years ago.
Some are worse off; some are better; many are about the same. It's just not sufficient to explain electing a literal criminal.
I'm sure it figures in somewhere, but I don't think it's anywhere near enough to explain the situation.
This article about a 2T reduction in the US budget doesn't mention Congress once.
Of all the articles I've seen entertaining this absurdity only two mentioned the obvious:
* Excluding entitlement programs and defense, stuff promised off limits, that's the entire rest of the USA budget. So it makes zero sense on face value.
* Good luck getting congress to pass that budget. Oh, did we all collectively forget what branches do what?!
To add, I really try to minimize external deps but if first-load speed were absolutely critical loading from jQuery CDN would increase odds of it already being cached..
We don't make any external HTTP requests for any library code. jQuery is embedded into the page HTML file, along with all other required library code necessary for the page to start functioning, in one bundle. Nothing that runs below the fold is executed until the page is scrolled. All scripts are deferred, except the required libraries, one of which is jQuery and is loaded in-line in a <script> block in the page <head>. There's a ton of tricks we use to get to a perfect Google Lighthouse score - we also score perfect 100% on mobile too. This isn't a complex web application but we do a lot of cool front-end stuff.
That's great and fair. Some places are NUTS about first page load speed(and I mean first time someone has ever visited the site) though and it really could matter across all deps depending on a ton of other factors..
Serving super common libs, like jQuery, from the lost likely CDN location could maximize the likelihood it's already cached.
I have never personally worked anywhere this mattered.
We provide a website among many other services to our clients. Our clients are very SEO focused, and they will go to Google's Lighthouse (or another testing site) to test their site's page speed, and then they will put in the URL for their competition's website to see how their site compares to their competitors. If they see their page speed score is 1/2 as fast as their competition, they have a reason to leave us and find a better host (whoever their competition is using). We have thousands of clients, so I am managing thousands of individual customized websites based on core "white-label" template code. Page speed matters to us very much, because it matters to our clients.
Google Lighthouse will complain about every HTTP request, and it doesn't care about CDN caching, because none of the external code will be cached when the test is run. It will tell you to minimize external HTTP requests. This is the same way every page speed test works, not just Google. So including any external dependency will cause the page speed score to go down a bit. Have enough of them and your page speed score ends up being very poor (many other factors can affect this, all of which are detailed in the Lighthouse report). It doesn't matter what the average site visitor experiences if their cache has jQuery in it from some random CDN. The only thing that really matters is that Google is telling our client that their site is performing badly compared to their competitor's site.
So, my job is to make sure our clients never, ever think about leaving us because of page load speed as measured by Google or any other testing site. Our clients pay us hundreds of dollars every month, some of them pay 10s of thousands depending on their needs (we don't just provide websites). So there is a lot of money at stake. Page speed scores matter very much to us. When our client sees their site is scoring perfect 100% on all Lighthouse tests, and their competitor is scoring a 70%, then we win, and the client has one less reason to leave. We even use this as a selling point to bring on new clients, because we have an absolutely untouchable page speed score compared to our competitors in this space.
I'm not sure what to say, I believe you but you seem to be talking past my point that other companies may prefer to go a different route based on their needs and what they are optimizing for. There are real situations a CDN may be preferred.
Companies that are using CDNs to load commonly used libraries aren't actually interested in page load speed scores. They're pursuing a tech trick that was always somewhat of a red herring, and frankly a bit risky. We've experimented with CDNs and they have actually added stuff to the libraries that shouldn't be there. Trusting a 3rd party to load library code from isn't great for security.
Using jQuery CDN might have helped with cross-site caching in the past, but now all major browsers have cache partitioning by origin for privacy reasons.
reply